I know that’s not a substantive edit, but I try not to edit any comments in any manner without the author’s consent.

As to the First Amendment, your example regarding in-court conduct to support your restrictive view of the First Amendment is a red herring. Such conduct disrupts the business of the Court and is not what we are talking about here. The advertising example is also a red herring, as commercial speech is not the issue either (although the US Supreme Court has been pretty darn generous to lawyers even as to commercial speech).

The speech you took issue with here is “pure” speech. Restrictions on this type of speech are subject to the strictest scrunity, and rarely survive constitutional challenge.

I believe in the original article I replied to, you said Stanley Cole “got stuck with a low-level assistant public defender to defend him against these charges. ” Which lead you to say: “Things ain’t looking good for Stanley right about now.”

Had you taken a moment to check, you would have seen that Eichelberger was the “low level” public defender appointed to represent Cole, and according to the “Kingfish”…….

Saturday, September 19, 2009
Eichelberger wins JJ poll

Matt Eichelberger was voted best criminal defense attorney in Jackson in a recent JJ poll. Second place went to Rob McDuff and Sam Wilkins placed third. It should be noted hours before voting ended Mr. Mcduff enjoyed a 30 vote lead when in the space of one hour over fifty votes were entered for the erstwhile Hinds County public defender.

Bill Kirksey 34 (6%)
Rob McDuff 88 (15%)
John Colette 18 (3%)
Joe Holloman 11 (1%)
Ed Ranier 6 (1%)
Dennis Sweet 10 (1%)
Bill Featherston 3 (0%)
Frank Trapp 18 (3%)
Chokwe Lamumba 17 (3%)
Tom Fortner 5 (0%)
Sam Wilkins 60 (10%)
THE Matt Eichelberger 117 (21%)
Vic Carmody 6 (1%)
Merrida Coxwell 19 (3%)
Tom Royals 17 (3%)
Kevin Camp 1 (0%)
Cynthia Stewart 13 (2%)
Sam Brand 25 (4%)
Aafrim Sellers 4 (0%)
David Kaufman 20 (3%)
Cynthia Speetjeens 10 (1%)
Tommy Mayfield 5 (0%)
Jim Kelly 9 (1%)
Randy Harris 36 (6%)

Posted by Kingfish at 11:35 AM 5 comments

Hmmm.

Again, Crowley, the point of my diatribe, and the point of the MRPC, is exactly what is in the name….Rules of “PROFESSIONAL” Conduct. They are there to inspire and motivate lawyers to hold themselves to a set of higher standards….”professional” standards of conduct.

I will concede that no one is going to come and lock you up or take away your Bar license for calling Steffey a “moran,” or anyone else for that matter. I guess to put it in more simplistic terms….I have the right to put on a dress in my front yard and dance like a monkey with a banana in my ear…however, just because I have the right to do that, does not mean I should exercise it.

Further, I challenge you to put your “First Amendment” rights to the test by using whatever colorful adjective comes to mind next time you are in a courtroom and “counsel opposite” ruffles your feathers, as I have. Something tells me it would be you, not I, that gets a “butt-chewing” (and probably a little more) from a federal judge, or any other judge for that matter!

If you choose to take me up on my challenge, please let me know the results. I can always use some humor.

Here’s a crash course: the First Amendment uses the term “congress,” as in the U.S. Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause makes the provisions of the First Amendment applicable to the states. Accordingly, the rules of professional conduct are subject to the provisions of the First Amendment.

I most likely just saved you a butt-chewing from a federal judge one day. You’re welcome.

Kingfish1

Kingfish2

Kingfish3

Kingfish4

And if Jackson Jambalaya ain’t your style, you can read Philip Thomas’ take on Steffey here at MS Litigation Review.